Electronic Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew: Part Two

Hebrew Dictionaries and the Field of Text Criticism

A printable version of Parts 1-3 of this demonstration is available here.

Text-critical research is on a new footing thanks to eGELS and databases like The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture(hereafter: CATSS) and those of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL). Their integration into the Libronix system makes them that much more useful. Commentary series with strength in the area of text criticism, such as ICC, WBC, JPSTC, and Hermeneia, are also available in Libronix format. A combination of background knowledge and intuition are irreplaceably important in the search for text critical discussions of interest relative to a particular study. At the same time, the value of keylinks across multiple resources is immense. A resource designed specifically for the work of text criticism merits development, but I would digress too much if I discussed the matter in this post.

The student of ancient Hebrew fools herself if she thinks that MT as it stands is a serviceable basis for serious study of the language or the texts it transmits. MT is a point of entry, not a final destination. The texts MT contains were copied many times before becoming a part of it. A goal of text criticism is the identification of inadvertent errors and conscious changes introduced into the text over the course of time.

A foray into the field of text criticism is an essential component of a serious word-study. In this section, sixteen אכל occurrences of text-critical interest are reviewed. In ten cases, MT is upheld. In six cases, MT is held to reflect a miniscule corruption involving a single or single cluster of syllables or letters. וְאַbecame וַיַּin Ps 81:17 via assimilation to the preceding line.וַאֲכָלֻם became וְאֹכְלֵם and כְּלָבִים became כְּלָבִיא in Hos 13:8 via assimilation to the preceding context. אַך לוֹ became אָכְלוּ וַ in the course of Ps 22:30’s transmission. יֵאָכֵל בְּדַו becameיֹאכַל בַּדֵּי by assimilation with the following line in Job 18:13. By aural misapprehension,אוֹכִיל לוֹ becameאוכיל לא in Hos 11:4-5. וּלְאֹכֶל became וְלֶאֱכֹלvia assimilation perhaps to the stress pattern and syllabics of וְלַאֲשֶׁר preceding in Gen 47:24. In two cases, arguments in favor of reading a form of אכל outweigh those opposed, but not decisively: וַאֲכַלֵּם/וְאֹכְלֵם in Exod 32:10 and אֲכֶלְךָ/אֹכַלְךָ in Exod 33:3.

To be sure, scribal errors have sometimes become the foundation for a rich history of interpretation. The same goes for conscious changes made at the micro and macro levels. They are retainable for specific purposes. But if an interpreter desires to know what the text looked like at a point in time prior to the intromission of said errors and changes, she will avail herself of text critical methods.

Text criticism has always been an aspect of the work of serious exegetes. Rashi, ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Luzzatto, and more recently, Driver, Greenberg, Craigie, and Fox, to cite a few prominent examples, sometimes propose a text at odds with MT, with or without the support of ancient witnesses. Of course, the proposals of those who seek to restore the received text to a more pristine state are themselves subject to evaluation.

Inclusion and summary evaluation of text-critical suggestions are traditional features of dictionaries of biblical Hebrew. eBDB is the most helpful in this regard, but is now outdated. DCH claims to abstain from evaluation, but the very fact that it omits mention of most past proposals is a form of evaluation. I discuss eHALOT’s text critical choices below. Sad to say, available dictionaries fail to describe the procedure followed whereby text-critical proposals were collected and evaluated and included or omitted. Glaring omissions of important past text-critical suggestions are evident in every one of them. Two examples may illustrate.

And he fed them with the fat of wheat,and from the rock I sated you with honey

The line recalls Deut 32:13-14 and like Ps 81 as a whole, is best understood against the background of the traditions about Israel’s transit through the wilderness preserved elsewhere in ancient Hebrew literature. However, the past reference implied by MT is out of place in context. The change from third to first person of the speaking subject midway through the line, furthermore, is jarring. 81:17 is the conclusion of the entire psalm, and one expects it to relate to the lines which precede it. It seems best to understand v18 as the conclusion of a subunit that begins in v. 14, the protasis of a condition; the apodosis takes up all of vv. 15-17. In that case, v. 17 is best understood as a divine promise, and slightly emended: read וְאַאֲכִילֵהוּ for וַיַּאֲכִילֵהוּ.[fn [1] Cf. 81:11. The translation then is: “And I will feed him with the fat of wheat, // from the rock I will sate you with honey.” The enallage of object is retainable; it occurs often in ancient Hebrew literature. One might have expected BDB, HALOT, and DCH to note the emendation, without giving it credence if such was the thought, but they do not.

Hosea 13:8b

MT Hos 13:8b reads as follows:

וְאֹכְלֵ֥ם שָׁם֙ כְּלָבִ֔יא חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה תְּבַקְּעֵֽם

There like a lioness I will eat them,a wild animal will rip them to pieces.

The conclusion to a complex simile that begins in 13:7, the difficulties of MT 13:8b are not evident in a number of translations, which render the last stich as if it readכְּחַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה אֲבַקְּעֵֽם(e.g., REB: ‘like a wild beast I shall rip them up’). OG Hos 13:8 read ואכלם as וַאֲכָלֻם ‘and they will eat them,’ the more difficult reading, because it presupposes a change of subject. וְאֹכְלֵםכְּלָבִיא‘I will eat them like a lioness’ in MT follows easily afterאֶפְגְּשֵׁם כְּדֹב‘I will encounter them like a bear’ of the preceding line, but is not necessarily correct. If one emends כְּלָבִיא to כְּלָבִים, a slight change, the concluding line of 13:7-8 ends strongly, without the inconcinnities of MT. The translation then is: ‘there the dogs will eat them, // a wild animal rip them to pieces.’ Duhm, Rudolph, BHS, Mays, NJPSV, and Borbone agree on the proposed text. eBDB, eHALOT, and DCH fail to mention the proposal’s existence.

Proposed emendations like the above warrant consideration. It is true, of course, that most past attempts at restoring supposedly corrupt passages in MT to their original form belong in the trash heap of history. But that is not the same thing as saying that they all do.

eHALOT in my view proposes to alter MT more often than is called for, as scholars have been wont to do from time to time. The opposite extreme is now common, whereby alteration of MT is foresworn on principle.

Psalm 22:30 and Job 18:13

eHALOT lists ten cases of אכל as reported in MT “to be read as” something else. eHALOT is right, it seems to me, in two instances: Ps 22:30a, where we should read, with BHS, Craigie, NRSV, and NAB: אַך לוֹ יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ כָּל־יְשֵׁנֵי־אֶרֶץ‘to him shall all who sleep in the earth bow down’ in place ofאָכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ כָּל־דִּשְׁנֵי־אֶרֶץ‘all the fat ones of the earth shall eat and prostrate themselves’; and Job 18:13, where we should read (similarly, Driver, Dhorme, NRSV, and Clines; for דַּו*, cf. גַּו from √גוי; and the Canaanite noun dw in the phrase y’kl dw in KTU 4.767=TT 433, if that is the correct reading

[2]) יֵאָכֵל בְּדַו עוֹרֹו‘his skin is eaten away by disease’ in place of יֹאכַל בַּדֵּי עוֹרֹו ‘he eats the tendons of his skin.’ A compelling defense of MT אכל is offered by Driver pro 1 Sam 1:18; Greenberg pro Ezek 33:27, Allen pro Ps 105:35; Clines pro Job 34:3; Fox pro Qoh 5:16; and Tov (Septuagint, 142) pro 2 Chr 30:22. In Deut 32:13, the reading sustained by eHALOT assimilates to context and is probably derivative. In Prov 31:27, the proposed emendation is odd. It has failed to attract support and does not deserve mention in a work of reference.

It is a drawback that lexica fail to register construals alternative to their own in a consistent fashion. The case of אוֹכִיל in Hos 11:4 may illustrate.

Hosea 11:4

The form is unique and occurs in a difficult passage. As Macintosh points out, אוֹכִיל was understood as a noun by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and by Ibn Ezra and Kimchi. OG Hosea has δυνήσομαι αὐτῷ ‘I will prevail with him.’ Whetherאוכיל לא(MT) or אוכל לוstood in its Vorlage is not known, but the translation reads as if it were the latter (so eGELS, example 2.c. in the Introduction, II. B). On this construal, אוכ(י)ל is a verb derived from יכל. Targum Jonathan, Peshitta, and Jerome, on the other hand, derive אוכיל from אכל. With BHS, eHALOT, NJB, REB, and NRSV, the text to prefer is probablyלוֹאוֹכִיל, in which אוֹכִיל is taken as equivalent to אַאֲכִיל. A truly helpful lexicon in a case like this would note and reference alternative construals. In the case at hand, at a minimum that would mean noting that α σ θ construe אוכל as a noun.

eBDB, eHALOT, and DCH do well to alert the reader to difficult and possibly corrupt passages which have exercised the ingenuity of scholars in the past. The signaling of cases in which MT attests to one thing and one or more versions attest to another is especially welcome. eHALOT does so in the case of Qoh 5:16, but not in the case of Deut 32:13; 1 Sam 1:18; Ezek 33:27; or 2 Chr 30:22. E.g., OG Ezek 33:27 translates as if לאכלה was in its Vorlage, the reading eHALOT prefers. The fact deserves note.

In an ideal world, every instance of lexicographical significance in which an ancient version appears to have worked from a base text at odds with MT, or interpreted the same consonantal skeleton in a different way, would be noted in a reference lexicon of biblical Hebrew. eGELS is a step in the right direction. Its relevant notes, however, are incomplete and not always reliable. E.g., in OG Mal 3:11, באכל is translated εἰςβρῶσιν‘for food.’ The translator read בְּאֹכֶל. A note to this effect is lacking in eGELS. In OG Ps 100 [=MT 101]:5, אתו לא אוכל is translated τούτῳοὐv συνήσθιον‘with him I would not eat’ (translation following NETS). The translator read אוֹכַל(spelled the same way in MT Ps 50:13), not אוֹכֵל as eGELS has it. This last case deserves note. It is not surprising that Mowinckel (91) and NEB follow OG and Peshitta’s lead in Ps 101:5 and read אוֹכַל against MT אוּכַל. ‘With him I will not eat’ fits the larger context (vv. 2, 6-7). But MT’s ‘him I will not endure’ is stronger and fits the immediate context better (vv. 4-5).

It is rare that MT’s vocalization is less probable than a conceivable alternative. But MT לֶאֱכֹל in this verse counts as an example.

Exodus 32:10 and 33:3

According to a note in A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (DBH), a masoretic note associates with the “East” the reading פֶּן־אֹכַלְךָin Exod 33:3. There is something to be said for this vocalization, and for reading וְאֹכְלֵםin place of וַאֲכַלֵּם in Exod 32:10. In both cases, Yahweh is the subject, who is elsewhere spoken of as a devouring fire (Exod 24:17; Deut 4:24; Isa 33:14; etc.). His anger is said to be about to חרה ‘burn’ against his people. For Yahweh then to say that ‘that I may devour them’ and ‘lest I devour you’ would be vivid and harsh. The harsh word, according to Exod 33:4, is precisely what got the people’s attention. To be sure, the verb כלה is securely attested in 33:5 and is elsewhere used with God as subject in equivalent contexts (e.g., Num 16:21; 17:10; 25:11; Josh 24:20; Jer 14:12; Ezek 22:31; Job 9:22). But on two occasions the verbs אכל and כלהco-occur (Jer 10:25; Hos 11:6). It is possible that Exod 33:3-5 also contains a co-occurrence. It is easier to imagine original וְאֹכְלֵם and אֹכַלְךָ being assimilated to the more common וַאֲכַלֵּם and אֲכֶלְךָ in Exod 32:10 and 33:3, respectively, than vice versa. The chief obstacle to this line of reasoning is the weak to non-existent attestation of וְאֹכְלֵם and אֹכַלְךָ in ancient witnesses. On the other hand, that may only go to show that the assimilation was ancient and almost universally received.

In the next post, eight passages which according to some but not all exegetes contain the verb אכל are discussed.

[1] An error of audition, with assimilation to the third person of the preceding line. The error is probably ancient. The versions, in my view, do not attest to the suggested reading, though S and T appear to in part. As translators tend to do, S and T render difficult texts more approximately than easier ones, based on the logic of the whole as they understood it. For a defense of MT, with misgivings, see Delitzsch. The first to propose the emendation seems to have been Wellhausen. It was adopted by Gunkel, Kraus, BHS, Alonso Schökel, and Hossfeld and Zenger; RSV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and NJB. NIV and ESV silently emend וַto וְ before the verb. I propose a ban on silent emendations in another post.

» The Blog from The Blog
Provides extranet privacy to clients making a range of tests and surveys available to their [url=http://olasep.info/Ml8zMzg5Nw==]human[/url] resources departments. [Read More]

Tracked on May 30, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Much of the field of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible depends on our view of what it is. Most university professors and academics believe the Tanakh is just another ancient text, and therefore they are free to mess around with it and "correct" it to their heart's content. Others believe it is the inspired Word of God, and therefore only contains textual problems if people have made genuine mistakes when copying it, and therefore we should be extremely careful about calling the Hebrew text "wrong", since we have no text that we know is "right" to compare it to.

Believing is KnowingComments on things like prophecy, predestination, and reward and punishment from an orthodox Jewish perspective, by David Guttmann

Ben Byerly's Blogthoughts on the Bible, Africa, Kenya, aid, and social justice, by Ben Byerly, a PhD candidate at Africa International University (AIU), in Nairobi, Kenya working on “The Hopes of Israel and the Ends of Acts” (Luke’s narrative defense of Paul to Diaspora Judeans in Acts 16-20)

C. OrthodoxyChristian, Contemporary, Conscientious… or Just Confused, by Ken Brown, a very thoughtful blog (archive). Ken is currently a Dr. Theol. student at Georg-August-Universität in Göttingen, part of The Sofja-Kovalevskaja Research Group studying early Jewish Monotheism. His dissertation will focus on the presentation of God in Job.

Catholic Biblesa thoughtful blog about Bible translations by Timothy, who has a degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome (Angelicum) and teaches theology in a Catholic high school in Michigan

Chrisendomirreverent blog with a focus on the New Testament, by Chris Tilling, New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre, London

Claude Mariottinia perspective on the Old Testament and current events by a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicagoland, Illinois

Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspotby Tyler Williams, a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature, now Assistant Professor of Theology at The King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta (archive)

Colours of Scripturereflections on theology, philosophy, and literature, by Benjamin Smith, afflicted with scriptural synaesthesia, and located in London, England

ComplegalitarianA team blog that discusses right ways and wrong ways Scripture might help in the social construction of gender (old archive only; more recent archive, unfortunately, no longer publicly available)

Connected Christianitya place to explore what it might be like if Christians finally got the head, heart, and hands of their faith re-connected (archive)

Conversational TheologySmart and delightful comment by Ros Clarke, a Ph.D. student at the University of the Highlands and Islands, at the (virtual) Highland Theological College (archive)

Daily HebrewFor students of biblical Hebrew and the ancient Near East, by Chip Hardy, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago

Daniel O. McClellana fine blog by the same, who is pursuing a master of arts degree in biblical studies at Trinity Western University just outside of Vancouver, BC.

Davar AkherLooking for alternative explanations: comments on things Jewish and beyond, by Simon Holloway, a PhD student in Classical Hebrew and Biblical Studies at The University of Sydney, Australia

Evedyahuexcellent comment by Cristian Rata, Lecturer in Old Testament of Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, Seoul, Korea

Exegetica Digitadiscussion of Logos high-end syntax and discourse tools – running searches, providing the downloads (search files) and talking about what can be done and why it might matter for exegesis, by Mike Heiser

Law, Prophets, and Writingsthoughtful blogging by William R. (Rusty) Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies as College of the Ozarks and managing editor for Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament

Lingamishdelightful fare by David Ker, Bible translator, who also lingalilngas.

old testament passionGreat stuff from Anthony Loke, a Methodist pastor and Old Testament lecturer in the Seminari Theoloji, Malaysia

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha BlogA weblog created for a course on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, by James Davila (archive)

On the Main LineMississippi Fred MacDowell's musings on Hebraica and Judaica. With a name like that you can't go wrong.

p.ost an evangelical theology for the age to comeseeking to retell the biblical story in the difficult transition from the centre to the margins following the collapse of Western Christendom, by Andrew Perriman, independent New Testament scholar, currently located in Dubai

PaleoJudaicaby James Davila, professor of Early Jewish Studies at the University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. Judaism and the Bible in the news; tidbits about ancient Judaism and its context

Serving the Wordincisive comment on the Hebrew Bible and related ancient matters, with special attention to problems of philology and linguistic anthropology, by Seth L. Sanders, Assistant Professor in the Religion Department of Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Targumanon biblical and rabbinic literature, Christian theology, gadgetry, photography, and the odd comic, by Christian Brady, associate professor of ancient Hebrew and Jewish literature and dean of the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State

The Biblia Hebraica Bloga blog about Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the history of the Ancient Near East and the classical world, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, early Judaism, early Christianity, New Testament interpretation, English Bible translations, biblical theology, religion and culture, philosophy, science fiction, and anything else relevant to the study of the Bible, by Douglas Magnum, PhD candidate, University of the Free State, South Africa

Technorati

Terms

Ancient Hebrew Poetry is a weblog of John F. Hobbins. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of his
professional affiliations. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
of Ancient Hebrew Poetry, including all text, images, and other
media, are original and licensed under a Creative
Commons License.